Does the large TV and Diet Cola pharma ads have something in common? Both are targets of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new director of the Department of Health and Human Services.
In his early efforts to “make America healthy again,” Kennedy singled two seemingly different questions: ubiquitous television ads for medicines and whether people in the federal food aid program can buy soda and junk food in taxpayer spawning.
Open a can of diet cola and open the latest episode Drill downhost Peter Schweiser tastes Crony capitalism.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. campaign A rapid ban on the use of food stamps to buy soda has heightened tensions between his team and the agricultural sector. Of course, the American Beverage Association, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of “Big Soda.” Response, Too much.
HHS hopes the Trump administration will approve petitions from the governor of Kentucky and West Virginia, banning soda purchases from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) program for the first time. However, USDA controls the program rather than the HHS. This leads to conflicts and a huge stake in the beverage industry.
The SNAP program costs $100 billion a year and serves approximately 42 million Americans.
Co-host Eric Eggers said Coca-Cola would drop global sales by 2.5% if sugary sodas are no longer covered by SNAP nationwide. Coca-Cola is just one of many manufacturers of soda. Additionally, the impact is also felt, as about 25% of all SNAP program expenditures take place in Walmart's cash register.
The show also incorporates another persistent issue and Maha's target: pharmaceutical advertising on television.
All Americans are used to hearing and watching miraculous drug ads when watching TV, especially news programs and sports. They often read cocktails of potential side effects while showing bright and happy old men swirling in golf carts or actively walking.
“I'm generally a free person, but what is the purpose of these ads? They are intended to create a demand for new, expensive drugs,” Schweiser points out.
There is also a brewing conflict with people who make money based on these ads. A media company that sells these advertising spaces to Big Pharma. Approximately 30% of the ads sold on TV news programs are for pharmaceuticals. Many people realize how easy it is for those networks to go to pharmaceutical companies.
Among the Western countries, New Zealand with us You can also allow drug ads on TV. And efforts to ban them from the sky will certainly raise First Amendment questions and concerns about the revenues of television network advertising.
Eggers says it was a change in law in the 1990s, leading to Pharma Ad Boom. The government had requested that every Potential side effects had to be revealed in advertisements promoting drug benefits. In 1997, the law was changed, Serious Potential side effects should be mentioned.
For research journalists like Schweizer and Eggers who follow money, the problem with both the sweet drink and the drug sales pitch is that the money they are pursuing comes from third parties. Subsidizing taxpayers to purchase obesity-related treats, such as soda and snack foods, discourages low-income snap beneficiaries from making better choices in the store. Similarly, the “talk to a doctor” message in drug ads is based on the knowledge that prescription drug costs less than insurers. But, as Eggers says, the thrust of advertising encourages people to self-diagnose.
“We're leveraging third-party payer systems,” he says. “If they leave soda to the snap program, should they also allow them to purchase cigarettes?” asks Schweiser.
For more information about Peter Schweizer, subscribe Drill down Podcast.
